Managing data for integrity: Policies and procedures for ensuring the accuracy and quality of the data in the laboratory

Abstract

Management of the research data is an extremely important responsibility of the Principal Investigator (PI) and other members of the research team. Without accurate data, no worthwhile conclusions can be drawn from the research study. Integrity in data management is critical to the success of the research group and to public trust in the research outcomes. One of the primary responsibilities of the PI is to provide proper training to the junior members of the lab. This effort can be buttressed by institutional data policies that are implemented at the group level. Extensive and frequent guidance in good research practices by the PI and other senior research staff is critical to the proper training of new scientists.

Keywords

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Office of Research Integrity, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or any other federal agency.

This paper was presented at the 6th International Bioethics Conference on the subject of ‘The Responsible Conduct of Basic and Clinical Research’, held in Warsaw, Poland, 3–4 June 2005.

References

Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2002) “Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct.” National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., p. 9.Google Scholar

3.

Research misconduct is defined as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” 42 CFR 93.103, Federal Register, p.28386, Vol. 70, May 17, 2005.Google Scholar

4.

Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register, 28370-28400, May 17, 2005, to be codified at 42 CFR Part 93. This regulation is posted at the ORI website at http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf; accessed on 11/3/05.Google Scholar

Stanford University Policy: Retention and Access to Research Data. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/2-10.html accessed 5/10/2005.Google Scholar

10.

Forsham v. Harris, 100 S.Ct. 977 (1980). “We hold here that written data generated, owned, and possessed by a privately controlled organization receiving federal study grants are not ‘agency records’ within the meaning of the Act when copies of those data have not been obtained by a federal agency subject to the FOIA.”Google Scholar

Duke University Policy on Data Retention and Access. http://www.ors.duke.edu/ors/policies/data.html; accessed on 5/10/05.Google Scholar

13.

University of New Hampshire Policy on Ownership and Management of Research Data. Http://www.unh.edu/orps/downloads/DataOwnershipandManagement.pdf; Accessed on 11/8/05Google Scholar

14.

Harvard Medical School “Guidelines for Investigators in Scientific Research” and “Guidelines for Investigators in Clinical Research.” http://www.hms.harvard.edu/integrity/scientif.html; http://www.hms.harvard.edu/integrity/clinical.html; both accessed on 5/13/05.Google Scholar

15.

Survey of Research Integrity Measures Utilized in Biomedical Research Laboratories: Final Report, pp. 35–36, Exhibit 2D, August 29, 2003. Conducted under contract to the American Institutes for Research. The report is posted on the ORI website at http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/research/integrity_measures_final_report_11_07_03.pdf; accessed on 11/3/05.Google Scholar